Fr. Prieur gets it wrong -- again

I was surfing the web and minding my own business when I came across an article by Catholic Insight that debunks another error by Father Michael Prieur.  In 2001, Fr. Prieur claimed that it was acceptable for Catholic hospitals to cooperate in a tubal ligation performed for the purpose of contraception.

Wrong -- again.

Why do we care what one priest thinks? This isn't just any priest. He's a Professor of Moral and Sacramental Theology at St. Peter's Seminary in London, Ontario. He's also Canada's foremost Catholic bioethicist. If you're angry about the rotten state of the Catholic Church in Canada, ask yourself what kind of formation our priests and ethicists are receiving with teachers like this. You can read more about Fr. Prieur's other errors here and here.

This is not a witch-hunt, but I'm tired of blind shepherds leading Christ's faithful into a spiritual ditch. If we ever hope to turn this Church around, there will need to be changes at many levels, not the least of which is in our seminaries and other areas of formation.

Let's get back to the issue of tubal ligation.  Dear reader, in case you think that you don't have enough theology degrees to address this question, please don't underestimate yourself so quickly.  Your gut instinct is correct.  This one is a no-brainer.  There's no way a Catholic can freely and directly cooperate with a tubal ligation or any other method of contraception.  Don't take my word for it. Read the Catholic Insight article here.

In the meantime, our seminary professor continues to mislead our future priests and health care practitioners.  Here's a non-exhaustive list of major errors found to date:

1. He endorsed "early inductions" before viability for 12 years, which is exactly the same thing as abortion but under a different name (by his own admission).  He only changed his tune when the US bishops dropped the hammer in 1997.
2. He continues to endorse "early inductions" on babies with severe deformities using a misguided notion of viability. The hospital where he serves as ethics advisor even performs early inductions in cases when the mother's life is not in danger, which is euthanasia, pure and simple.
3. He supports the Winnipeg Statement and believes that the decision to use contraception is up to the individual conscience.
4. He wrote an article endorsing embryonic stem cell research, in opposition to Church teaching.
5. And now we know about his support for tubal ligations, again in opposition to the Magisterium.

On virtually all the major issues in bioethics, he's at odds with Church teaching. And yet we rely on him to form our priests and health care practitioners? We're getting what we deserve.

.

Clarifications on "early inductions"

A few days ago, I wrote a post regarding the unethical practice of "early inductions".  I would like to clarify something.  I will also add this new information to the original post.

There exist some rare conditions where it may be necessary to remove the membranes that surround the unborn baby because these membranes have become diseased and could result in the death of the mother (and, of course, of the baby).  For example: 

• Chorioamnionitis is an inflammation of the amnion and chorion membranes that surround the baby due to a bacterial infection.  The amniotic fluid typically gets infected too. If left untreated, both the mother and baby could die.  Apparently, antibiotics are not sufficient to fix the problem.  As a result, it is necessary to take out those membranes and the amniotic fluid from the mother.  Of course, since the baby is inside those fluids, the baby comes out at the same time.

• Pre-eclampsia is a dangerous condition that  leads to high blood pressure, high protein levels in the blood and seizures in the most severe cases (this is not an exhaustive list of symptoms).  This condition is potentially fatal for the mother and baby.  While the cause is not known, some theorize that it may be due to problems with the placenta.  Medication can be used to treat the moderate cases, but the most severe cases appear to be resolved only by removal of the placenta, which takes the baby out.

I've chosen my words carefully because I'm making a direct reference to the principle of double-effect. In these two cases, you will notice that it's not the baby that is killing the mother. It's the "stuff" that surrounds the baby

The moral problem with "early inductions" at St. Joseph's Catholic Hospital

Following an earlier post of mine on the scandalous "early inductions" at St. Joseph's Catholic Hospital, a very interesting discussion ensued in the comments section. This post is a synthesis of why I believe that the procedures at St. Joseph's are not morally acceptable.


What is happening at St. Joseph's

Before starting my explanation, I'll just repeat what exactly is happening at St. Joseph's: 

1. A prenatal diagnosis test reveals a baby has serious birth defects.
2. The doctors conclude that the mother is in some physical, psychological or psychiatric danger because of the baby's defect.
3. Doctors wait until the baby reaches 21 weeks of gestation, the point at which it is considered "viable", in other words that it could theoretically survive outside the womb if it were given highly specialized intensive care treatment.
4. The doctors then artificially induce labour so that the baby is born prematurely.
5. They intentionally let the baby die.  They only provide palliative care to the dying baby. 

Why this is morally unacceptable

In this section I'll explain why this practice is so horrible.  Not only are St. Joseph's official guidelines - as written on paper - morally unacceptable, but their application is even worse because they're terminating babies when the mother's health isn't even in danger.

In the 5-point description above of what happens at St. Joseph's, you'll notice that the baby does not die of its deformity.  It dies due to prematurity.  Heck, even a perfectly healthy baby delivered at 21 weeks would not survive

Bishop Henry rips bill C-484 but ignores euthanasia committed under Bishop Fabbro's nose

As reported by Michael at Freedom Through Truth, Bishop Fred Henry of Calgary has sent a letter to Fr. Tim Moyle regarding bill C-484.  It is a very good letter and I applaud Bishop Henry for this strong pro-life effort.  

I am unaware if this letter has been distributed more widely through the media or throughout the Calgary diocese.  It would certainly be worthwhile.  

One paragraph of the letter caught my attention:

The legislation of aid-in-dying would pose a threat to the elderly, the infirm, handicapped newborns and to all members of society who are unable to look after their own best interests. This kind of legislation says to them: "you're not important; you're not needed; in fact, you are a burden to others.

That's an excellent point.  We need to hear this more often.  

It's funny he should mention "newborns", because one of his fellow bishops, Ronald Fabbro (London),  oversees

Italians indignant at Court's attempt to ban crucifixes from schools

The European Court of Human Rights ruled today that Italian schools should remove crucifixes from classrooms, sparking uproar in Italy, where such icons are embedded in the national psyche.
(...)
The court ruling, which Italy said it would appeal, said crucifixes on school walls, a common sight that is part of every Italian's life, could disturb children who were not Christians. Italy has been in the throes of national debate on how to deal with a growing population of immigrants, mostly Muslims, and the court sentence is likely to become another battle cry for the centre-right government's policy to restrict newcomers. (Source)

In case you haven't been following European politics, this is just the latest intrusion of the "European government" into the internal affairs of individual member countries.  

As an economist, I support some of the initiatives that the European Union (EU) has brought.  I'm totally in favour of free trade and a common market.  I also can see the advantages of a monetary union and some harmonization of various economic and financial policies.  Such measures promote economic efficiency, facilitate capital and labour mobility (i.e. job opportunities) and lead to a general increase in living standards.  That was the original purpose of the EU.  

However, like any institution that acquires power and influence, it is easily hijacked by those common folks that suffer from the chronic condition called "Original Sin."  Over time, the EU has sought to expand

Group Co-Founded by Canada's Bishops Calls on MPs to Oppose Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide

(LifeSiteNews.com) - The Catholic Organization for Life and Family (COLF), a group co-founded by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB) and the Supreme Council of the Knights of Columbus, sent an open letter yesterday to all of Canada's MPs, urging them to vote against Bill C-384. The private members bill, brought by Bloc Quebecois MP Francine Lalonde (La Pointe-de-l'Ile), seeks to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide. 

Read the full story here.

This is definitely good news.  COLF has done excellent work over the years. But the bishops cannot delegate their responsibility to teach about life issues to COLF.  They need to teach it themselves by their words AND ESPECIALLY by their actions.  So far, most of them aren't doing too well, judging by their handing of the Development and Peace scandal and their invitation of a dissenter to speak at their Plenary, not to mention the abortions taking place at St. Joseph's Catholic Hospital in London under the supervision and approval of a Catholic priest.

Lord help us!


.

Vatican Archbishop clarifies Catholic teachings on life-issues, politicians and witnessing to Truth

Archbishop Raymond Burke is the Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura. This is a position analogous to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. After the Pope, Burke holds the highest judicial office in the Roman Catholic Church. His statements carry a lot of weight. We should pay attention.

Please read his thought provoking piece here.  Some interesting quotes (but you should read the whole article):

One of the ironies of the present situation is that the person who experiences scandal at the gravely sinful public actions of a fellow Catholic is accused of a lack of charity and of causing division within the unity of the Church.

 (...)

A unity which is not founded on the truth of the moral law is not the unity of the Church. The Church's unity is founded on speaking the truth with love. The person who experiences scandal at public actions of Catholics, which are gravely contrary to the moral law, not only does not destroy unity but invites the Church to repair what is clearly a serious breach in Her life. Were he not to experience scandal at the public support of attacks on human life and the family, his conscience would be uninformed or dulled about the most sacred realities.

(...)

For Christians, the acceptance of others who are not of the Christian faith is not a matter of tolerance, but of love which adheres to the truths of the faith while respecting the beliefs of those who are not Christian, as long as those beliefs are coherent with the natural moral law, that is, coherent with the respect for the "inalienable rights" with which God has endowed every man. Christian love does not have its foundation in blind tolerance of others and of what they think and say and do, but rather in the profound knowledge of others and their beliefs, and the honest acknowledgment of differences of belief, especially in what may compromise the life of the nation.

(...)

We find self-professed Catholics, for example, who sustain and support the right of a woman to procure the death of the infant in her womb, or the right of two persons of the same sex to the recognition which the State gives to a man and a woman who have entered into marriage. It is not possible to be a practicing Catholic and to conduct oneself politically in this manner.

(...)

But there is also true scandal, that is, the leading of others, by our words, actions and failures to act, into confusion and error, and, therefore, into sin. Our Lord was unequivocal in his condemnation of those who would confuse or lead others into sin by their actions. In teaching His disciples about temptations, He declared:

Temptations to sin are sure to come; but woe to him by whom they come! It would be better for him if a millstone were hung round his neck and he were cast into the sea, than that he should cause one of these little ones to sin (Lk 17:1-2).

It is clear that Our Lord taught as a primary responsibility, with the gravest of consequences, the avoidance of scandal, namely, of any act or failure to act which could lead another into sin. Our Lord's words are nothing less than vehement.

(...)

The perennial discipline of the Church, for that reason among other reasons, has prohibited the giving of Holy Communion and the granting of a Church funeral to those who persist, after admonition, in the grave violation of the moral law (Code of Canon Law, cann. 915; and 1184, § 1, 3º). It is said that these disciplines which the Church has consistently observed down the centuries presume to pass a judgment on the eternal salvation of a soul, which belongs to God alone, and, therefore, should be abandoned. On the contrary, these disciplines are not a judgment on the eternal salvation of the soul in question. They are simply the acknowledgment of an objective truth, namely, that the public actions of the soul are in violation of the moral law, to his own grave harm and to the grave harm of all who are confused or led into error by his actions. The Church confides every soul to the mercy of God, which is great beyond all our imagining, but that does not excuse her from proclaiming the truth of the moral law, also by applying her age-old disciplines, for the sake of the salvation of all.

The Catholic Church's Salvation: Tell it Like it Is

A great article by Suzanne Fortin highlighting the core of the problem with the Catholic Church in Canada and our bishops. Here is a key excerpt:

But the modernistic dissent doesn’t end at abortion. The weak response on the pro-life issue is symptomatic of the widespread reluctance to abide by and preach rudimentary Catholic philosophical beliefs, such as:

  • The ends do not justify the means.
  • The order of creation (e.g. men and women are complementary).
  • The hierarchy of truths.
  • The principal of non-contradiction.
  • Natural Truth can be known by reason alone.
  • The intrinsic evil of certain acts, and how they must always be rejected.

This has resulted in church elites distorting Catholic moral doctrine and sanctioning things like:

  • Inductions for post-viability fetuses who are terminally ill.
  • Legal recognition for same-sex unions.
  • Leaving the issue of contraception up to “one’s own conscience.”
  • Treating issues like the environment and poverty as equally important
    to fetal rights.

Read the whole article here.

.

Two good moves against euthanasia by Canadian bishops

Today, I'm happy to report some pro-life leadership on the part of Canadian bishops.

On September 21, the president of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB), Archbishop James Weisgerber, released a letter asking MPs and Canadians to oppose the proposed legislation to legalize euthanasia (bill C-484).  

Earlier in September, the Archbishop of Edmonton, Richard Smith, launched an initiative to urge parishioners to get involved in opposing the bill.

Bravo!  These are two very praiseworthy moves on the part of our bishops.  We need to give them our support and encourage them to provide strong leadership in the future.